5e and Intelligence

[OzDragon]

Ok so as we all know that for anyone but wizards for the most part Intelligence is a dump stat.

Why though, was it so that they could not MC easily? A lot of people agree that wizard is the class that is best staying wizard 1-20 anyway.

Lets look at charisma and wisdom. Charisma has Warlock, Paladin, Sorcerer and Bard. Wisdom has Druid, Cleric,Ranger and one subclass of Monk.

For MC purposes Charisma is king with Warlock, Sorc and Bard being very big options. I mean most of the MC "optimizations" include Warlock.

I think a lot of us will agree that Paladin/Warlock and Paladin/Sorcerer are among the most powerful PCs depending on the level.

On the other side of the coin though is Wisdom where dips are more the fad. Take one or two levels of one and go all out on another.

Then in the rear we have Intelligence with only one class that even needs it for anything other than skills. The only MC that really comes up for them is Fighter 2 for Action Surge.

Why in their infinite wisdom did WotC decide that Intelligence was the crap stat? Are they worried that MC wizards would be crazy powerful or to limit the options to wizards in general.

What are your thoughts on this? Should they implement another class that needs intellect or leave it be? Should they introduce more Intelligence saving throw spells as there are so very few?

Should they shift an already existing class to intelligent casting? If you think this which one and why?

[Unoriginal]

Ok so as we all know that for anyone but wizards for the most part Intelligence is a dump stat.

If you want to play morons, sure.



Why in their infinite wisdom did WotC decide that Intelligence was the crap stat?

They didn't decide it, you (as in, the people who have this opinion) decided it.



What are your thoughts on this? Should they implement another class that needs intellect or leave it be? Should they introduce more Intelligence saving throw spells as there are so very few?

Should they shift an already existing class to intelligent casting? If you think this which one and why?

The Psionic class and the subclasses are in the workshop, so...

[JellyPooga]

Int is the go-to dump stat because of one reason; smart people don't go wandering into the wilds to kill orcs for a living.

I suspect it was a thematic choice to limit how useful Int is, to highlight how stupid a career choice adventuring is and further, differentiate the bad guys (with their nefarious plans, cunning traps and sly modus operandi) from the good guys (with their blunt force trauma approach to solving problems).

That said...it's a weak party that doesn't have a "loremaster" (i.e. someone with a bit of savvy aka: Int>8 and/or some "lore" skill proficiencies/expertise) and a weaker GM that doesn't offer the opportunity for such a character to contribute something valuable to the game (IMO). In a game of creating rich and vibrant fantasy worlds, the guy that's revealing the secrets is the guy that's facilitating the GM to become more expansive, more descriptive and more creative. A party of dullards has a dull experience ("Fight orc, Fight goblin, Fight dragon...we fight good") compared to the party that's exploring the world through their intellect ("What's the dragons name? Where does he come from? Why is he here?...any plot hooks abound?). Yes, there's the player vs. character divide to consider and how one roleplays lower Int is up for debate, but when the GM asks for Int rolls when a player asks a question, the high Int character is the one that's getting all the answers.

Don't underestimate just how strong Int can be. It's not all about the numbers...

[OzDragon]

If you want to play morons, sure.



They didn't decide it, you (as in, the people who have this opinion) decided it.



The Psionic class and the subclasses are in the workshop, so...

I will agree with you on this. In all honesty though intelligence, strength and charisma are the most dumped stats. Yes it may vary from person to person.

[OzDragon]

Int is the go-to dump stat because of one reason; smart people don't go wandering into the wilds to kill orcs for a living.

I suspect it was a thematic choice to limit how useful Int is, to highlight how stupid a career choice adventuring is and further, differentiate the bad guys (with their nefarious plans, cunning traps and sly modus operandi) from the good guys (with their blunt force trauma approach to solving problems).

That said...it's a weak party that doesn't have a "loremaster" (i.e. someone with a bit of savvy aka: Int>8 and/or some "lore" skill proficiencies/expertise) and a weaker GM that doesn't offer the opportunity for such a character to contribute something valuable to the game (IMO). In a game of creating rich and vibrant fantasy worlds, the guy that's revealing the secrets is the guy that's facilitating the GM to become more expansive, more descriptive and more creative. A party of dullards has a dull experience ("Fight orc, Fight goblin, Fight dragon...we fight good") compared to the party that's exploring the world through their intellect ("What's the dragons name? Where does he come from? Why is he here?...any plot hooks abound?). Yes, there's the player vs. character divide to consider and how one roleplays lower Int is up for debate, but when the GM asks for Int rolls when a player asks a question, the high Int character is the one that's getting all the answers.

Don't underestimate just how strong Int can be. It's not all about the numbers...

I completely agree with you here. I'm not saying at all that Intelligence is not strong or needed. I'm more asking why is it not more important.(not the word I want...but kind of gets the point across)

[Morty]

I don't think there was any real reasoning behind it - just sloppy design. Intelligence's main feature for non-wizards in 3e was providing skill points. Those were dropped, which for all the problems 5e's skills have was a good decision, because skill points were a mess. But once that happened, Intelligence was left without much of a purpose otherwise, and for some reason no one thought to provide it with something else. A similar thing happened in 4e, where skills were likewise decoupled from Intelligence. Maybe they couldn't give it anything else without substantially altering things, so they just waved their hands at and said "eh, whatever, wizards will take it anyway".

[2D6GREATAXE]

I once allowed a PC to be a Int based Warlock, it was homebrew he found online I read it and it worked really well in my campaign.

[Magzimum]

In my opinion:

Intelligence: Analytical problem solving skills
Wisdom: Street smarts (or rather environment smarts: it can be a forest, desert or cave system too)
Charisma: People skills


Combined, these three are the stats that basically say how a character's head functions. Put it like this: there exist people in real life that have zero education and never trained their analytical skills, but who are really excellent in dealing with their environment and can make well-informed and smart choices.

Intelligence is the stat of scholars. And we're playing a game in which a lot of people want to be an action hero.

[OzDragon]

In my opinion:

Intelligence: Analytical problem solving skills
Wisdom: Street smarts (or rather environment smarts: it can be a forest, desert or cave system too)
Charisma: People skills


Combined, these three are the stats that basically say how a character's head functions. Put it like this: there exist people in real life that have zero education and never trained their analytical skills, but who are really excellent in dealing with their environment and can make well-informed and smart choices.

Intelligence is the stat of scholars. And we're playing a game in which a lot of people want to be an action hero.

I agree with all of this. I just wish Intelligence was more useful!

[Cespenar]

At this point, you would expect D&D to allow changing your casting stat or at least make kits for it, but no. Still the smart mage, wise cleric situation.

[Zejety]

Warlock was an Intelligence class in the playtest and has mostly been changed because players were attached to the classical CHA-based Warlock.
From what few D&D novels I've read, INT would make sense as they are still "taught" spells by their patrons (or study), even if the Warlock doesn't personally provide the energy. There's also a point to be made that you'd need some intelligence to establish initial contact with a Patron to form a pact.

I'm not saying Charisma doesn't make sense but Intelligence also does, and would have balanced the abilities a bit.

[MoiMagnus]

Here as the problem with intelligence in D&D 5e

1) Contrary to 3e, intelligence no longer give skill points. I hated the skill point system, but I have to admit that at least it gave intelligence a purpose.

2) Unless you run campaigns with a lot of psion-like creatures (which I usually do), the intelligence save is useless.

3) If you, as a professional athlete, make a character dumped in strength, the DM will not allow you to use your real life strength to compensate for your poor in game strength. However, most DM will allow players that are intelligent but play characters with dump stat intelligence to give tactical advice to other players, or play rationally their character. Assuming you are an experienced player, you may not even need to do a knowledge test to know the weakness of your enemies ! Intelligence is by far the easiest dump stat to compensate at the meta level.
(By the way, this is probably better that way, since forcing a player to play dump is not fun at all. And having players willingly playing dump characters can easily ruin a campaign if the DM wanted from the players more than obeying orders.)

4) Contrary to any real life fight, intelligence is useless. Seriously, nobody heard about strategy and tactics? And since intelligence also reflect the capacity to learn and have knowledge, it should also help a lot to remember about melee fighting moves and how to counter them... Seriously, adding Int to Dex for the Initiative checks seems a good and realistic way to balance stuff... except for the Wizzard which may end up OP with this change.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't think there was any real reasoning behind it - just sloppy design. Intelligence's main feature for non-wizards in 3e was providing skill points. Those were dropped, which for all the problems 5e's skills have was a good decision, because skill points were a mess. But once that happened, Intelligence was left without much of a purpose otherwise, and for some reason no one thought to provide it with something else. A similar thing happened in 4e, where skills were likewise decoupled from Intelligence. Maybe they couldn't give it anything else without substantially altering things, so they just waved their hands at and said "eh, whatever, wizards will take it anyway".
I second this one. Not every facet of design was some carefully considered choice.


At this point, you would expect D&D to allow changing your casting stat or at least make kits for it, but no. Still the smart mage, wise cleric situation.
I honestly think 5e works better when totally de-coupled from ability scores, but eh. Sacred cows.

[Willie the Duck]

I will agree with you on this. In all honesty though intelligence, strength and charisma are the most dumped stats. Yes it may vary from person to person.

Barring there being more Cha-based classes than Int-based ones, it's all the same. Each of these stats have the potential to be dump stats. It will depend on the DM, because each one requires DM-gatekeeping. The way that works for Strength is obvious -- if the DM enforces tracking encumbrance, then you can't just have a party of 8 str characters wandering around (and if they use the harsher 5x/10/15x encumbrance rules, boy howdy does strength start looking like a wise investment!). The other two are harder, because the gatekeeping is the importance of knowledge and social skills (do you know that the key to solving the adventure is hidden in the King's woods? Can you convince the king to let you got looking there?). The problem with those are twofold: 1) the skill system is sloppy and poorly defined (I say that as someone who looked at the book and said "thank god they did away with the extremely well defined charts of 3.5 that no one used and when they did provided goofy results!"). It is inexact and provides poor guidance on how to use it. And more importantly, 2) if you the DM use knowledge or social skills as a gatekeeping mechanism, the dominant result is flat out cutting out of actions by the PCs (they don't know to go to the King's woods, or can't get permission to go there). That can be worked around with adventuring (trips to bastions of knowledge, secretive mission under king's nose, etc.), but for the most part it just means the PCs find another way to get what they want (or choose different goals).

[darknite]

I used to think the Int stat and save were useless. Then I met Psychic Scream.

[Sigreid]

Int is the go-to dump stat because of one reason; smart people don't go wandering into the wilds to kill orcs for a living.

I suspect it was a thematic choice to limit how useful Int is, to highlight how stupid a career choice adventuring is and further, differentiate the bad guys (with their nefarious plans, cunning traps and sly modus operandi) from the good guys (with their blunt force trauma approach to solving problems).

That said...it's a weak party that doesn't have a "loremaster" (i.e. someone with a bit of savvy aka: Int>8 and/or some "lore" skill proficiencies/expertise) and a weaker GM that doesn't offer the opportunity for such a character to contribute something valuable to the game (IMO). In a game of creating rich and vibrant fantasy worlds, the guy that's revealing the secrets is the guy that's facilitating the GM to become more expansive, more descriptive and more creative. A party of dullards has a dull experience ("Fight orc, Fight goblin, Fight dragon...we fight good") compared to the party that's exploring the world through their intellect ("What's the dragons name? Where does he come from? Why is he here?...any plot hooks abound?). Yes, there's the player vs. character divide to consider and how one roleplays lower Int is up for debate, but when the GM asks for Int rolls when a player asks a question, the high Int character is the one that's getting all the answers.

Don't underestimate just how strong Int can be. It's not all about the numbers...

I'd argue it's the wise person who wouldn't go hunting orcs for fun and profit. 😁

[KorvinStarmast]

I once allowed a PC to be a Int based Warlock, it was homebrew he found online I read it and it worked really well in my campaign. You two are my heroes for the week. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogie]

Well, in addition to the entire wizard class, and the UA Artificer, there's the Arcane Trickster Rogue and the Eldritch Knight

Something like a Lore Bard could be probably switched to Int without much issue.

I could see someone easily converting some of the monk subclasses to scale with Int rather than Wisdom - either Way of the Open Palm (a sort of study of physiology, like Bartitsu, popularized by Sherlock Holmes in both books and the RDJ movies), or Way of the Sun Soul (the closest one to spellcaster).

Monster Slayer and Horizon Walker Rangers could be converted to be using Int rather than Wisdom without giving much pushback.

[KillingTime]

I've often wondered if WotC felt that Wizard would have been too powerful MCing with other caster classes, and it does make a bit of sense if that's their rational.
Warlock would certainly have been the obvious choice to be the other Int based class though.

That said, Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight are both very feasable MC classes for Wizards, and are also unlikely to outright dump Int in their own right. An Int score of 16 for both of these would be common, if not standard.

I do feel there could be other classes that at least partially run off Int (Lore Bard maybe), and it could also be an option to allow Initiative to run off Int instead of Dex (or as a choice, or as a combination of the two).
The only other obvious mechanical benefit I could see being a good houserule would be to key bonus languages into a high Int stat, but that's still pretty marginal benefit for most players.

WotC have clearly decided to throw a few more dangerous Int save spells into the game via Xanathar's to keep stupid characters on their toes.
And as mentioned above, any upcoming Psionic classes should also get Int based abilities.

From a roleplay perspective, dumping Int can be tricky, but many tables just arm-wave Int as book learning so that players can still function without dribbling all over the table.
In fairness, all the mental stats have this problem - it's just more common to dump Int so we see the results more often.

[thereaper]

The alternative would be even worse. As it is, there are too many ability scores that most characters need a decent score in. You want a good Str or Dex, you want a good Con, you want a good Wis, and then you might also want a good Cha or Int. That's potentially 4 stats on a single character! 5 would make it even more of an issue.

[Willie the Duck]

The alternative would be even worse. As it is, there are too many ability scores that most characters need a decent score in. You want a good Str or Dex, you want a good Con, you want a good Wis, and then you might also want a good Cha or Int. That's potentially 4 stats on a single character! 5 would make it even more of an issue.

Is that inherently a bad thing, though? I mean, the very fact that we have the term 'dump stat' indicates that there are convenient places to shove poor rolls or allotments. Is that a better game than one where every stat is useful to every class, and you have to decide where to put your weakness (or whether to spend your ASIs maximizing your high scores or shoring up your weak ones)?
yes, this is diverging kinda into pure whitespace game design, ignore if uninterested in exploring.

[BBQ Pork]

If you want to play morons, sure.

Depends on how low and how bad that dump stat gets dumped. A 9 or 10 might be low compared to the rest of a PC's stats, but in a world where most people have 9-12 in any given stat (bell curve on 3d6), that's a relatively average dude.

[2D8HP]

Int is the go-to dump stat because of one reason; smart people don't go wandering into the wilds to kill orcs for a living.

I suspect it was a thematic choice to limit how useful Int is, to highlight how stupid a career choice adventuring is and further, differentiate the bad guys (with their nefarious plans, cunning traps and sly modus operandi) from the good guys (with their blunt force trauma approach to solving problems).

That said...it's a weak party that doesn't have a "loremaster" (i.e. someone with a bit of savvy aka: Int>8 and/or some "lore" skill proficiencies/expertise) and a weaker GM that doesn't offer the opportunity for such a character to contribute something valuable to the game (IMO). In a game of creating rich and vibrant fantasy worlds, the guy that's revealing the secrets is the guy that's facilitating the GM to become more expansive, more descriptive and more creative. A party of dullards has a dull experience ("Fight orc, Fight goblin, Fight dragon...we fight good") compared to the party that's exploring the world through their intellect ("What's the dragons name? Where does he come from? Why is he here?...any plot hooks abound?). Yes, there's the player vs. character divide to consider and how one roleplays lower Int is up for debate, but when the GM asks for Int rolls when a player asks a question, the high Int character is the one that's getting all the answers.

Don't underestimate just how strong Int can be. It's not all about the numbers...


That was just amazing, bravo!


Depends on how low and how bad that dump stat gets dumped. A 9 or 10 might be low compared to the rest of a PC's stats, but in a world where most people have 9-12 in any given stat (bell curve on 3d6), that's a relatively average dude.


These threads keep popping up, and I keep responding with variations of "8 and 9 aren't that dumb"!

A standard human made with standard array stats will not have an INT that is less than 9, and frankly my role-playing a PC with an INT higher than that requires copious note-taking, and by definition half of all people have below average INT.

Besides I'm sick of the tyranny of high IQ types in the real world, and I want to RPG gutting Wizards anyway!

Down with the magocracy!

[Morty]

Warlock was an Intelligence class in the playtest and has mostly been changed because players were attached to the classical CHA-based Warlock.
From what few D&D novels I've read, INT would make sense as they are still "taught" spells by their patrons (or study), even if the Warlock doesn't personally provide the energy. There's also a point to be made that you'd need some intelligence to establish initial contact with a Patron to form a pact.

I'm not saying Charisma doesn't make sense but Intelligence also does, and would have balanced the abilities a bit.

It would make sense, but just like you said - it wouldn't "feel right", because people are used to warlocks using Charisma. So it couldn't happen.



I honestly think 5e works better when totally de-coupled from ability scores, but eh. Sacred cows.

I agree, but that really wasn't going to happen.

[Cicciograna]

When I created my character, playing for the first time 5th edition, I didn't know that Int was a "useless" stat (at least for a Sorcerer), so I put an 18 to it (I rolled really well).

I could have put it to Con (to which I put 13), for better durability, or Wis, for the save. But I kind like having a +4 instead of +1 in some of the skills, without proficiency. In a world where the maximum bonus that one can hope to achieve to a skill is...how much? +11? I feel that the extra +3 coming from a high Int could make the difference.

Would I change that to Con 18 and Int 13 if I had the chance? Possibly, but possibly not. Besides, from the purely fluffy point of view, I like my character being super-smart. Not all the choices in character creation should be mechanically-driven. I respect those who would switch my Int and Con score, it would rationally make sense, but I am enjoying my PC as he is, high Int and slightly-above-average Con.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Xanthar's did give intelligence a bit of a boost.

Training was changed from taking 250 days, to ten workweeks (10 days in a week for 100 days) and each point of intelligence modifier reduces that by one work week. So you're fourteen intelligence character would take only 80 days to learn a skill.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Xanthar's did give intelligence a bit of a boost.

Training was changed from taking 250 days, to ten workweeks (10 days in a week for 100 days) and each point of intelligence modifier reduces that by one work week. So you're fourteen intelligence character would take only 80 days to learn a skill.
Oooh, that's neat. Did not notice that.

[thereaper]

Is that inherently a bad thing, though? I mean, the very fact that we have the term 'dump stat' indicates that there are convenient places to shove poor rolls or allotments. Is that a better game than one where every stat is useful to every class, and you have to decide where to put your weakness (or whether to spend your ASIs maximizing your high scores or shoring up your weak ones)?
yes, this is diverging kinda into pure whitespace game design, ignore if uninterested in exploring.

D&D is not set up in such a way that every stat can be equally useful to every class. In practice, we either have some stats that can largely be ignored without shafting your character, or you don't and you're sort of shafted anyway. 5e is arguably already in the latter group. The decision to tie every ability score to a save doesn't make certain stats less important; it just means that when those saves do finally come up, you're screwed because the fighter can't afford to reduce his strength or constitution or whatever to buff up his poor charisma save. So, really, trying to make every ability score matter reduces choice. Or at least that's how I feel about it.

The better compromise, I think, is to have options. Recall how in 4e each save could benefit from one of two ability scores. This enabled you to have, say, a smart fighter or a strong wizard if you wanted without feeling like it completely ruined your character, because the sacrifices were smaller (our hypothetical wizard would lose a few hp by choosing str over con, but their fortitude would be the same, for example).

[narrator667]

More than anything I think what we need is an official Psionic and some kind of half-caster INT based Engineer class. Free tinker's tools obviously, with Crossbows, explosives, and simple weapon proficiencies. I hate the idea of DnD becoming so advanced that it's almost Victorian, but at the same time so many character concepts focus on explosives it makes no sense for it to not have been simplified and made official yet.

[kraitmarais]

^^ Good post by JellyPooga up there.

In games I run, characters miss out on quite a lot of loot, discovering easier ways to do things, and potential NPC assistance if no one makes Intelligence checks at certain points, and can succeed on those checks. Part of the game is unraveling the mysteries of the setting.

[Phoenix042]

The proper question is why isn't there more mechanical payoff for general, non-class-specific usage of int.

I have a point-buy human fighter with:
16 / 14 / 14 / 10 / 14 / 12

And resilient (wisdom). None of my features directly reference dex or wisdom (since I'm strength-based), and I have only a single minor class feature that's in any way affected by con, yet those scores have a HUGE impact on my character's survivability and capacity to solve problems and accomplish things in the game world. Of my other party members, not ONE of them dumped Wisdom or Constitution, and only one has a positive int score. They play a rogue, paladin, sorcerer, cleric, and barbarian. They all have at least +1 wis and +1 dex, not because we are of the opinion that int isn't useful, but because we are burdened in our decision making by the obvious and inescapable reality that other abilities are generally MORE useful for each and every one of us.

The only exception to this is the cumulative value a party gains out of having at least one member with a decent int and some int-skill proficiencies, which is true of every ability. Comparatively, if one of our party members had an 8 Con, the whole party would be weaker for it, that character would be an obvious weak link, and he'd feel the burden of his low con during practically every play session.

Similarly, my high wisdom and my resilient (wis) pick have come up TONS of times, and I often feel like they contribute more to my survivablity than even my dex and shield master feat.

The point isn't that intelligence doesn't have value or benefits for non-int-casters, the point is that it doesn't have nearly as much mechanical impact for such characters as any other ability does for any other character.

It's not worthless, but it's hard to argue that it's not the weakest stat independent of class-specific usage.

When I put together a character, I try to consider the role-playing aspects of the ability; if I want to be clever, wise, or charming, then I want to invest in int, wis, or cha respectively. But when I want to be wise, my character happens to gain all these other, mechanically strong benefits out of my decision. When I want to be charming, I open myself up to lots of multiclassing options and benefit from a wide array of charisma-based features in all sorts of classes, like the battlemaster's rally maneuver, the inspiring leader feat, or the various charm abilities that make charisma skills more useful and can be picked and used by non-charisma casters.

Yet I feel like if I chose to play a "clever" barbarian, paladin, non-caster fighter or rogue, or cleric or sorcerer, or warlock, or bard, that I've just gained very little additional benefit for making that choice.

[AvatarVecna]

Here are some useful houserules I'm using in games I run:

1) Characters get additional proficiencies at lvl 1 equal to their lvl 1 Int mod (in any mix of tools and languages they want). They can give up two of those for a skill proficiency.

2) Knowledge checks on monsters are CR-based, and the better you beat the DC, the more information you get. This is particularly useful if you frequently use strange variant monsters or homebrew.

3) Any illusion spell that requires an Investigation check + interaction to disbelieve can now use an Int save instead of an Investigation check, at the player's choice. This means that rogues and wizards have at least baseline competency at dealing with illusions, while high-level monks and paladins are also fairly good at dealing with them.

My players have appreciated mechanics that give them some motivation not to build and RP dumbasses.

[Cynthaer]

Others have answered some of these, but I'll go ahead and give my answers to the OP directly.


Ok so as we all know that for anyone but wizards for the most part Intelligence is a dump stat.

"Dump stat" can be a contentious phrase, but I know what you mean. There are very few (sub-)classes that get any hard combat benefit from Int, so it mostly only shows up if (A) you're a Wizard or one of a couple of subclasses, or (B) you want to be ok at Investigation or knowledge skills.


Why though, was it so that they could not MC easily? A lot of people agree that wizard is the class that is best staying wizard 1-20 anyway.

Nah. Warlock was originally an Int class, but player feedback during the playtest was that people wanted it to be Cha like in previous versions. You can still see it in the fluff—for instance, the Great Old One patron writeup is all about doing research and uncovering unspeakable knowledge or whatever.

(Also, they don't generally restrict MC options for reasons like "we don't want Wizards to multiclass". The only MC "restriction" I'm aware of that's similar is that the Barbarian Rage feature was designed specifically to not be compatible with Sneak Attack, but that was just to avoid a certain case of stacking at-will damage increases. It's not really a comparable scenario to Wizards.)


Lets look at charisma and wisdom. Charisma has Warlock, Paladin, Sorcerer and Bard. Wisdom has Druid, Cleric,Ranger and one subclass of Monk.

For MC purposes Charisma is king with Warlock, Sorc and Bard being very big options. I mean most of the MC "optimizations" include Warlock.

I think a lot of us will agree that Paladin/Warlock and Paladin/Sorcerer are among the most powerful PCs depending on the level.

On the other side of the coin though is Wisdom where dips are more the fad. Take one or two levels of one and go all out on another.

Then in the rear we have Intelligence with only one class that even needs it for anything other than skills. The only MC that really comes up for them is Fighter 2 for Action Surge.

Why in their infinite wisdom did WotC decide that Intelligence was the crap stat? Are they worried that MC wizards would be crazy powerful or to limit the options to wizards in general.

Consider that it took the community a few years after 5e's release to work out all of these powerful multiclass combos. It's not really about liking or hating Int, or the power of multiclassing options. It's pretty much just that with Warlocks moved to Cha, there was one more Cha class and one less Int class than they started with.

If anything, the fact that they initially presented Warlocks as an Int class (instead of Cha like in previous editions) demonstrates that they wanted to have more classes using Int and fewer using Cha.


What are your thoughts on this? Should they implement another class that needs intellect or leave it be?

Well, whatever version of the Mystic eventually sees print, it'll be an Int class. The Psychic Warrior subclass for the Fighter should use Int a bit more than the Eldritch Knight, and if they end up making a psionic subclass for the Rogue (or Barbarian), that will presumably also use Int.

Incidentally, Crawford recently mentioned on stream that they generally design things top-down—that is, they have a concept for a race, class, or character archetype, and then try to implement that mechanically so it feels right.

They don't do much "hole-filling" design, in the sense of "there's no race with bonuses to both Str and Int" or "there aren't enough classes casting off Int". One consequence of this is you do end up with a "lumpy" distribution of content, where a lot of races may have Str bonuses and only a few boost Int, etc.

Personally, I think that this is probably the right approach for the kind of game they're making, and it's ok if not every stat is equally represented.


Should they introduce more Intelligence saving throw spells as there are so very few?

Not really. Ultimately the game is designed around Dex/Con/Wis (Ref/Fort/Will) saves, with other stat saves popping up as the occasional oddity. I don't see a real design benefit in diluting the defensive stats.


Should they shift an already existing class to intelligent casting? If you think this which one and why?

Thematically, Warlocks work just fine as either Cha or Int casters, depending on the nature of their patron and the "contract". If you let your players choose either, it doesn't hurt the balance of the game at all. I use this houserule in my game.

Other than that, eh. It's fine.

[2D8HP]

I second this one. Not every facet of design was some carefully considered choice.


I honestly think 5e works better when totally de-coupled from ability scores, but eh. Sacred cows.


Seems to me that they designed 5e to be more "coupled" to ability scores than old D&D.


Anyway, here's what I've seen that's made me regret not having a PC with higher INT in 5e:

1) Have a Dungeon crawl.

2) Have traps in the dungeon.

3) Have finding without triggering traps be an Investigation roll instead of a Perception roll.

It negated my "build" but (in combination with other factors) that DM was very impressive to me.

[Cynthaer]

Seems to me that they designed 5e to be more "coupled" to ability scores than old D&D.

Not sure if this is what Grod meant by it, but as far as characterization goes, I'm in favor of ignoring your stats the moment it starts causing you problems.

If you want to give your character a snooty academic's voice but their Int is "only" 10, go for it. If you want your character to be outgoing and flirty with 8 Cha, who am I to stop you? You'll tend to do poorly on "knowledge" and "flirting" checks, respectively, and as far as I'm concerned that is your stats influencing your characterization.

Now, some people get a big kick out of working out how to "properly" roleplay, say, a high-Cha/low-Int character, and more power to them. I'm in favor of anything that serves as creative inspiration to anybody.

It's just that sometimes I see people get stuck worrying about putting points into Cha because they "don't want to roleplay an ugly jerk", and there's a whole weird thing about Int where people think 8 Int is the stupidest possible person just because it's the lowest score a PC can take. At that point, just relax, put the points where you want them, and play it however you like. It's a game, not a chore.

[GlenSmash!]

There is always the simple method of calling for more Int checks, or adding monsters that target Int saves.


Xanthar's did give intelligence a bit of a boost.

Training was changed from taking 250 days, to ten workweeks (10 days in a week for 100 days) and each point of intelligence modifier reduces that by one work week. So you're fourteen intelligence character would take only 80 days to learn a skill.

I really need to get to reading everything in XGtE. This sounds great.


I honestly think 5e works better when totally de-coupled from ability scores, but eh. Sacred cows.

I remember when it was announced that Skyrim would not use ability scores like previous Elder Scrolls games did. I wondered how much of a difference it would make. It turned out not much at all really.

I'd try a variant of 5e with no ability scores, but I think we're unlikely to see it.

[2D8HP]

Not sure if this is what Grod meant by it, but as far as characterization goes, I'm in favor of ignoring your stats the moment it starts causing you problems.....

....It's a game, not a chore.


Your post was awesome, and it made me reflect on something:

5e WD&D more than any other version of D&D that I'm familiar with does a better job of suggesting that role-playing is something you may do for fun, if you want, and here's some ideas for that.

Look (for example) at how Alignment used to be handled (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559645-D-amp-D-Alignment-a-history) compared to how it is handled in 5e.

I'm pretty vocal about my complaints (is there anyone who hasn't seen them?), but I really think that adding backgrounds, ideals, etc. has improved the game.

[Eric Diaz]

Intelligence is NOT a crap stat, but it CAN be a crap stat for some PCs - like Charisma and even Str if you're not using variant:encumbrance.

How to fix it?

Heh... not sure it NEEDS fixing. Some people give one extra language/tool per Int bonus, or give you a starting gold bonus absed on Cha.

I DO think the sorcerer should be replaced by a Int-based mathmagician or psion, but that's just me.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2018/03/more-flowers-for-d-5e-et-al.html

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lqCNF6meF4E/WrxQz198AMI/AAAAAAAABcs/JKYCzRUyeFwGNDPiomWj5C9F-W-TFRpKgCK4BGAYYCw/s400/flower1.png

This is pretty straightforward: Strength, Intelligence and Charisma are the more "aggressive" abilities, either trough attacks (Str), skills (Cha with deception, intimidation, feinting, etc.) os spells (Int and Cha). Dexterity, Wisdom and Constitution is the more "defensive" ones.

But there is some nuance.

While Constitution has basically only defensive uses, Dexterity and Wisdom may be used to attack. With some caveats: Dexterity does NOT get added to damage in 3.x, and Wisdom is used for some spells. And Strenght can often protect through armor - although it won't help you with saves or avoiding "touch attacks".

Now, the first thing we learn from this is: sometimes, you can safely dump TWO aggressive stats, provided ONE of them is good enough. And you can dump ALL THREE if you can use one of your passive stats to attack. However, dumping ANY defensive stat is dangerous, because you can choose how to attack your foes... but not how your foes attack you!

[Speely]

^^ Good post by JellyPooga up there.

In games I run, characters miss out on quite a lot of loot, discovering easier ways to do things, and potential NPC assistance if no one makes Intelligence checks at certain points, and can succeed on those checks. Part of the game is unraveling the mysteries of the setting.

Seconded. Int on paper is pretty much a "lol wizard" ability, but a good DM can make it far more important merely by making information more important in the campaign. Everyone dumping Int might be more optimized, but they might never learn very important info related to their purpose.

I have come to look at Int as a tradeoff: Optimize and dump Int, and the party will be better at dealing with more (possibly needless) stuff, but they will be better at it. I swing this a bit by doing XP gain via milestones, not killing stuff. I reward high Int by kinda fudging how useful Int-based info is.

It's very much a DM-dependent ability outside of Wizards, so I choose to have it affect out-of-combat situations in key ways. I expand Arcana and History to give better results on average successes, specifically. This can have a huge effect on a campaign.

[Derpaligtr]

The issue with Intelligence is that it's easy to roll-play it, but hard to roleplay it. If you don't already have a high int, there ain't a lot of faking it.

Most of us are going to be 10 Int, that's the average. There isn't a whole lot of difference between 8 - 12. It's also an ability score that works with a more in depth skill system.

Intelligence shouldn't be an ability score, it should be a skill system.

[Vogie]

Intelligence shouldn't be an ability score, it should be a skill system.

Now that I could get behind